288 DR. T. S. COBBOLU OK THE LAEGE HUMAN FLUKE. 



to tills Society in June 1859 (Synopsis of the Distomidae, p. 5, 

 Proceedings, vol. v.). The late Dr, Lankester, it is true, in his 

 English edition of Kiichenmeister's work on Parasites, was the first 

 to give a distinctive title to this entozoon {Distoma Buskii) ; but 

 as the discoverer objected to this nomenclature, and as Dr. Lan- 

 kester's proposed terms were unaccompanied by any original de- 

 scription, I requested Mr. Busk to suggest a new name for the 

 worm, which he accordingly characterized as above. As I sub- 

 sequently pointed out, Von Siebold had already employed the 

 compound title Distoma crassum to designate a small fluke infest- 

 ing the House-Martin {Hirundo urbica); but for reasons similar 

 to those which contributed to set aside Dr, Lankester's nomen- 

 clature, the title adopted in my synopsis at length came to be re- 

 cognized by Leuckart and other well-known helminthologists. 

 Before this recognition took place, however, Dr. Weinland, of 

 Frankfort, had so far accepted Lankester' s nomenclature as to 

 call the species Dicroccelium Buskii. In my judgment there 

 were no sufficient grounds for placing the parasite in Dujardin's 

 unsatisfactory genus. Be that as it may, I have only further to 

 observe that in addition to the original specimens above particu- 

 larized, two others are preserved in the Museum at King's Col- 

 lege. Thus probably only five out of the fourteen specimens are 

 still in existence ; and such being the case, I have thought it 

 worth while to collect and record these few particulars. 



The earliest literary notice of the entozoon appeared in Dr. 

 Budd's classical treatise 'On Diseases of the Liver;' and in it 

 the author correctly stated, from data supplied by Dr. Busk, that 

 these human flukes were " much thicker and larger than those of 

 the sheep," being, it is added, from "an inch and a half to near 

 three inches in length." The longest of my recent specimens, 

 however, scarcely exceeds two inches, whilst the smallest and 

 most perfect (the one at Oxford) measures less than an inch from 

 head to tail. The greatest width of my broadest specimen is little 

 more than half an inch, or ■^^". None of the twelve examples 

 that I have examined approach the length of three inches ; but 

 Mr. Busk assured me that, judging from his recollection, some of 

 his specimens were even longer than that. I fear, nevertheless, 

 that the estimate given in my Synopsis is somewhat exaggerated ; 

 at all events it is so for average specimens. 



The new anatomical facts made out by me bear reference 

 principally to the reproductive apparatus. What else I have 



